GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - Someone called DOJ. From another board

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Someone called DOJ. From another board (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=483951)

I'm guessing this is all bullshit.

Like fuck I would put up with a government telling me how to name my files, that I can't remove images and videos from my server once I'm done with them and when I can link to someone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPinks

I'm sure Google will work out some kind of "deal" witrh the DOJ.

lmfao, Google is the DOJ. They're not going to be the ones in court over this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dameian

"18 U.S.C. 2257 does not apply to all erotic content. First, 2257 is limited to 'visual
depictions,' so wholly textual works are excluded from its regulatory scope.

As quoted from "THE 2257 CLIENT HANDBOOK: A Guide to Complying with the Federal
Record Keeping and Labeling Laws in 2005" by First Amendment Attorneys Paul J. Cambria, Jr. Roger W. Wilcox, Jr.

------------------------------------------------

Beyond that, here are my personal thoughts. As worthless as they may be in an environment where people are typically more concerned about having their say in a "Would you hit it!" thread than one that actually has significance to our industry's future:

1. Not al TGPs profit from all text links on their site. Therefore the "conspiracy" argument is at least partially flawed and difficult to define/enforce.

2. Do you have any idea of how much such an interpretation of this regulation treads on the First Amendment? If not. Wow.

3. When trying to set a precedence, the key is to avoid as much grey area as possible. Text links to other sites with text descriptions (once again falling under free speech) presents quite a lot of grey matter to deal with for the DOJ. They are not, at least initially, going to target text based sites.

4. You can not rightfully expect to call an attorney on the opposing end of a legal battle and hear anything other than distressing rhetoric aimed at demoralizing you and your cause. What do you expect them to say? "No, no Mr. Pornographer don't worry... you're doing GREAT! Keep at it and good luck!"

Thanks for the post! :thumbsup
18 U.S.C. 2257 does not apply to all erotic content. First, 2257 is limited to 'visual depictions,' so wholly textual works are excluded from its regulatory scope. But has this all changed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunky

Well ..until I hear people are starting to go down..I aint doing shit

what if you're first...? :Oh crap

i doubt that the doj would comment on the law (and particularly a grey area of the law, linking to images) over the phone or tell you what is compliant or not

Just reading some of these posts makes you realize that the US DOJ must be rubbing their hands and laughing hysterically as they wait to get started. :2 cents:

No, the proposed regulation has not changed. These regulations were released last month, and they have not been altered by the DOJ. It is actually unlawful for the DOJ to do so after it has been published in the circular.

What you must understand is this: What the DOJ is going to say vs. what a good First Amendment Attorney will say are going to be two vastly unique and adversely different things. You can not logically expect the opposing side of the argument to say what you want them will say. I do not want to be redundant (and I am fucking tired), so reference my previous post for the 4 major reasons (I could think of at the time) why text only TGPs have very little to worry about initially.

Beyond that, your best course of action is to speak with a good first amendment attorney and follow the guidelines they give you.

Does doing so completely exempt you from potential litigation? No. The reason being this: Most of this is up for interpretation. It WILL take litigation to better define the grey areas, unless what is released tomorrow @ 1:30PM somehow manages to negate what I've stated here.

I highly doubt that will be the case.

Regardless: If you'd like to read more of the 2257 Handbook we were given, have at it:

http://www.caughtnude.com/THE_2257_HANDBOOOK.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Yes an anime is exempt and even porn made before 1995 is exempt. As soon as one of these people can explain how one gets 2257 docs on TEXT then I'll worry about text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes an anime is exempt and even porn made before 1995 is exempt. As soon as one of these people can explain how one gets 2257 docs on TEXT then I'll worry about text.

TADOW.

Exactly.

51? Ha!

Wow, I feel so special...

51...

i need two dollars so they turn me loose through the turnstiles

look...

Bottom line is this... all you can do is try to be as compliant as you can be. Other than that, everything is up for interpretation.

the US GOV will do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to do it...

$2? If I only knew that is all it would take....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dameian

$2? If I only knew that is all it would take....

I sale Post bot.

Help you big time!